From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 10:50:45 +0100
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v3 7/7] fzsync: Check processor affinity
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2dgC4qTYMTXfvf7vKXJKG539BgvhM1-V4u0q8JDvmeKXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210319091837.27319-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com>
 <20210319091837.27319-8-rpalethorpe@suse.com>
 <CAEemH2dgC4qTYMTXfvf7vKXJKG539BgvhM1-V4u0q8JDvmeKXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87tuof3hxm.fsf@suse.de>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hello Li,

Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> writes:

>  static void tst_fzsync_pair_init(struct tst_fzsync_pair *pair)
>>  {
>> +       long ncpus = tst_ncpus_available();
>> +
>>         CHK(avg_alpha, 0, 1, 0.25);
>>         CHK(min_samples, 20, INT_MAX, 1024);
>>         CHK(max_dev_ratio, 0, 1, 0.1);
>>         CHK(exec_time_p, 0, 1, 0.5);
>>         CHK(exec_loops, 20, INT_MAX, 3000000);
>> -       CHK(yield_in_wait, 0, 1, (tst_ncpus() <= 1));
>> +
>> +       if (ncpus <= 1)
>> +               pair->yield_in_wait = 1;
>>
>
> I'm wondering here why not using the CHK macro as before but additionally
> involved a variable 'ncpus'.
>
> Isn't that CHK(yield_in_wait, 0, 1, (tst_ncpus_available() <= 1)) better?

The macro generates compiler warnings because yield_in_wait is bool and
so it is always inside the valid range unless (ncpus <= 1).

However I should remove the useless variable.

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.